Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - kosmacz

Pages: [1] 2
Flat Earth General / Re: GPS
« on: March 20, 2020, 11:48:20 PM »
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because, for example, land-based "satellites" won't be able to tell the altitude you are at. Besides, there would have to be quite a few of those fake satellites to cover the whole surface of the Earth, and I don't see how it can be hidden.
Its odd to me that you think land-based transmitters won't tell you the altitude you are at. Why do you hold this quaint belief? It has nothing to do with the transmitters being in space. It has to do with how many there are.

They would. But they would require a lot more of them to be installed (by someone) and supervised in the whole world (including very poor or unpopulated areas). The cost of maintenance would be absurdly high. But here are some other hard parts. GPSs works on the planes. Yes, even private ones, and i don't mean board gps, i mean civil gps'. They also works in the middle of forests, mountains, where often cell network is not available. Where do they mount these magical transmitters? On the trees? Are flatties really going to defend such absurds?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where do Google Map's satellite images come from?
« on: October 28, 2019, 05:31:41 AM »
High altitude aircraft could do it, but I see great problems with most countries concerning airspace invasion.

Pretty sure they came to some kind of an agreement! Just add few millions to the long absurd list of conspiracy followers.

Oh boy that escalated quickly.

Admins / moderators - this is about flat earth or about mental problems?

What are the consequences of refusing to think for ourselves instead of blindly believing everything we are told? We are stuck in a bad situation which is going to be worse and http://worse as time goes by

Because shape of the earth is not a USA thing! NASA exists since 1958! And many nations around the world were exploring the space for much more longer time before it has been established. So, considering that no conspiracy can be achieved without the money, who paid then everyone since then? :) I mean, even Nazis V2 was achieving attitude of 100km (far higher than alleged dome would exists). So V2 was fake and USA paid them to not to tell to anyone? :-)

Besides - proving the challenger disaster was fake by finding similar people living somewhere is so stupidly silly, that i can't even name it. I have literally Rutger Hauer, Dolph Lundgren and Linda Hamilton living in 70.000 city in Poland.

That makes NASA the ONLY institute/company/organisation in the history of mankind with an almost perfect track record.
Hell even the Red Cross can only dream of such a perfect history in which 'to serve the progress of mankind' is the only interrest.
But NASA supporters are a bit like 'Michael Jackson' supporters..... you simply can't discuss the supposed wrongdoings..... because no wrongdoings were committed ever.

How is that an argument?

Of course NASA had failures. Although you made up a story, i am pretty sure you know very well, that that is not the truth.
Only to mention few more obvious facts, like challenger disaster, like apollo program astronauts died while doing tests in lunar module, like buying Yugoslav space program, and many, many more.

But you know what? We know about this. So, you believe, that NASA and many other space agencies around the world, observatories, scientists, amateurs, airlines, literally millions of people hide for much more longer time something much more bigger? How, for the Christ? And why? Because the NASA budget cannot be event considered as anything able to cover percent of this...

If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain were not seriously damaged [...]

Flat earth argumentation at its finest ...

Flat Earth General / Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« on: September 10, 2019, 07:18:05 AM »
Hermann Weyl was the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955, greater than Einstein.

Yeah, and Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
I don't get this whole comparision, who was the greatest scientist, or mathematician. To me this looks like a child's self esteem problems.
Really. Who cares?

Important is, what has been proved, and what has been falsified. And here comes peer-reviews and other processes.
And if you like to undermine the work of any of these scientists - do not do this here, there are not the competences to do the peer reviews.
Go for it, and do as the grown ups do.

Here is the proof:

DATED: JUNE 09, 2009

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.


That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.

You got it wrong. Instead of overcomplicating this, use MAMSL (St. Catherines beach is more than 100m above the sea level) values and simulate the view in google earth by adding a small layer with a center of an observed object and at attitude from curve calculator (i'd suggest metabunk as it can use refraction). You will get exactly what the photographer got!

St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.

This is not the CN section.

The entire geological structure is above sea level.

We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.

St. Catharines beaches are at aprox. 70m - 80m MSL.
Still - absolutely possible.

10m observer, makes it totally possible to see the roof of sky dome.

Not from St. Catharines.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5

St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.

10m observer, makes it totally possible to see the roof of sky dome.


Here is the photograph to prove it:

Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.


According to the photographer, 51 km.

Pretty close to what we see on the picture then. I think i did from 1m MSL for the observer, he could be a little higher, so he would be seen even more.
Yeah, exactly what would we expect to see on RE.


Here is the photograph to prove it:

Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.


mak3m, you are trolling, again.

Your messages on this page belong to CN.

Go ahead and ask Newton, Einstein, or any other modern physicist to explain HOW attractive gravity works.

They won't be able to explain.

Very bright! Asking dead people to proove something :)
Here you go - how gravity works according to the relativity:

Would say, besides, that nuclear plants are hoax?

Why is the bottom of the lighthouse hidden by at least 24 feet on a flat earth when it should be hidden by 0 feet?

You are trolling the upper forums.

You'd need a very powerful camera, perhaps one that needs to be invented yet, to capture the entire visual obstacle.

The video presents every aspect explicitly: no such features could be seen on a round earth.

Using metabunk calculator:
10.4 miles distance,
6 feet tall camera.

Gives us (really same results, but the interpretation):

With the refraction approximation* giving an effective radius of 7432.83 km (7432833.33 m)
Refracted Horizon = 5.21 km
Refracted Drop= 18.84 meters
Refracted Hidden= 8.93 meters
Refracted Horizon Dip = 0.040 Degrees, (0.0007 Radians)
Note: Not accurate for observations over water very close to the horizon (unless the temperature and vertical temperature gradient are accurate)

Geometric results (no refraction)
Geometric Horizon = 4.83 km
Geometric Drop = 21.99 meters
Geometric Hidden= 11.13 meters
Geometric Horizon Dip = 0.043 Degrees, (0.0008 Radians)

So, let's go to google earth, shall we?

I added a layer, first, 9m above the sea level:

Looks familiar?
Let's see the result on the youtube:

you can do very same without taking refraction into consideration (so his 11.4m - aka 36.5 feet). But it won't be much different.

At 1 minutes he shows the data according to, this lighthouse is 95 feet over the sea level, but that's not true, it's almost 128 feet. So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth.


The height is clearly specified in at 1:34 in the video, using the AUTORIDAD PORTUARIA DE MALAGA data, that is, THEIR OWN PRECISE LOCAL DATA, not google searches like you did.

What? 128 feet? 39 meters?

Take a look at the lighthouse itself in the video, where are the 14 meters from the bottom of the lighthouse basement to the sea? Are you dreaming?

14 meters is the height of a four story building.

Please do not bother your viewers with BS data again.

You don't really get it? Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.
Informations at 1:34 are correct, but they have nothing to do with sea level, there is just height of the tower and height of focal plane.
Now, i see that you're confused with height of focal plane.
This IS NOT the height of the tower above the seal level. This is height of the lamp above the mean water surface!

So, when he's comparing level above the sea of an observer with level above the water surface of the tower's lamp, then the results are like the rest of the results of flat earth experiments. Funny.


Flat Earth proven.

At 1 minutes he shows the data according to, this lighthouse is 95 feet over the sea level, but that's not true, it's almost 128 feet. So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth.

As for the video with the lighthouse, please read the comments section: the viewers were not convinced at all, in fact, they bring up very interesting points.

Bathurst Lighthouse video:

The comments section DESTROYS THE VIDEO.

Please read.

Wolfie6020 who knows when this vid was taken? Are you seriously asking us to take your word for it? Because you offer zero proof of the date.

What you have admitted in passing is that the swell does indeed invalidate your vid. Unlike your halfwit followers who don’t understand the importance of the swell off Rottnest, you do know. My point is that the swell can be up to 4.5m at various times of the year. Which you completely fail to mention in any of your Bathurst Lighthouse vids. Very deceptive and it has tricked your zombie minded followers

Btw why spell metres, meters? Team Wolfie is a NASA shill account. Uses American spelling.

Better lift your game, this vid is an epic fail.

You haven't payed attention. He addressed this in comments:

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lack of flat earth images
« on: September 06, 2019, 01:39:28 AM »

Yes and radio waves have been known to travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers. On a spherical Earth they would go in a straight line which would go out into space (as the radio wave wont follow the curve).

Dont give me this bouncing of the ionosphere rubbish either. That was just a convenient plot device for NASA. If the ionosphere existed, The American government would have used it by now to cripple their rivals by destroying or disrupting it above the country to attack

You're wrong. First of all, ionosphere WAS indeed used before there were satellites as the addition to undersea cables for international communication. However, ionosphere communication was then very unreliable and during the cold war there was a threat, that undersea cables might be easilly destroyed by soviets to prevent the communication.
So the US military came up with the idea of creating an artificial ionosphere by launching 480.000.000 needles on 3500-3800 km altitude thus creating artificail dipole antennas.
It is very well documented, because some organisations protested against it.

So you provided kinda proof for the round arth.

Many amateurs use today ionosphere for their intercontinental communication. It's called skywave.
So either you add thousands of radio amateurs aroun the world to your conspiracy or just embrace the truth.

For many other solutions radio repeaters or relays must be used.
Here you'll find an interesting table of frqeuncies propagation and methods used:

Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: September 04, 2019, 08:11:05 AM »
Oh, and now that Shifter saw thru our ruse...

... he's the next one to be replaced.

And typically, the subject being copied is terminated.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: September 04, 2019, 06:29:45 AM »
I killed John.

I was young, and needed the money.

You just can't go around killing people!

Flat Earth General / Re: What are the best flat earth arguments?
« on: September 04, 2019, 12:50:10 AM »
There is even a prize for such a model, funded by someone on youtube. Ill try to find it.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: September 03, 2019, 09:41:48 PM »
The candle experiment PROVES that the earth is flat in the simple way shown By John. It is irrifutable.

The fake candle experiment proves only, that flat earthers does not seek the truth.

Well, at least until we see some image documentation of these crowds - shall we?

We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.

And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).

Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:

In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):

This a really low quality manipulation. Almost everything about Enceladus before Voyager missions was a wild guess.
It would be fair to include a comment from George Dyson about this note:
Note that the .618 density for Enceladus was not a transcription or arithmetic error, it is due to the mass and radius of the outer planet satellites being known only approximately at that time. (I believe Thomas “Tommy” Gold was brought in as a consultant on the question of selecting landing sites.) These calculations were made to determine the best destination both in terms of an optimum velocity match and highest probability of being able to obtain water ice or hydrocarbons on the surface to replenish the vehicle’s propellant mass.

All Nasa missions are faked, including Cassini:

Now, here is another reference on the speed of the water vapor molecules:

The CO2 E3 and E5 data show an approximate inverse square decay of the plume density with distance from the south polar terrain, which is consistent with collisionless vapor expansion from Enceladus well in excess of the 240 m/s escape speed.

The expression assumes radial expansion of the gas from the surface sources at constant speed, neglecting gravity since the mean molecular speed in the jets significantly exceeds (by at least a factor two) the 240 m/s Enceladus escape speed.

Just a second - you claim that Cassini was faked, but you use Cassini's data to proove your point? So, if your point is valid, then Cassini could not be faked :)

Water vapor is gas.

The jets were still tightly focused at an altitude of 15 km above the surface, suggesting they were moving faster than 2100 km per hour. Such high speeds imply that the jets are fed by pressurised water vapour that shoots through narrow openings – which act like rocket nozzles – in the moon’s icy surface.

Same principle applies as for rockets in a vacuum, yet no modification of the orbit is being observed.

Let us remember that there is a very delicate balance between the tidal forces attributed to Saturn and its moons (official astronomical data):

ANY disturbance would lead to orbital chaos.

Since the water vapor geysers of Enceladus have NO EFFECT whatsoever on the orbit of the satellite (ejected on such a huge scale of hundreds of kilometers), we can safely infer that rockets do not and cannot function in vacuum, same principle applies (not the speed of the gas itself).

"At these warm temperatures, liquid water, ice and water vapor mingle. The vapor escapes to the vacuum of space through cracks in Enceladus' ice crust. When the gas expands, it cools and the ice grains that make up the visible part of the plumes condense from the vapor. Vapor in the plumes is clocked at roughly the same speed as a supersonic jet, about 300 to 500 meters per second, or about 650 to 1,100 miles per hour. However, most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second (536 miles per hour).

Pinball-like physics account for the slow speed of the particles. Shooting up through crooked cracks in the ice, the particles ricochet off the walls, losing speed, while the water vapor moves unimpeded up the crevasse. The vapor reboosts the frozen particles as they pinball off the walls, carrying them upward. Reaching nozzle-like openings at the surface, the faster-moving water vapor shoots high above Enceladus, becoming entrapped in Saturn's magnetosphere. Most of the particles, which have lost energy through collisions in transit, fail to achieve escape velocity and fall back to Enceladus' surface. Only about 10 percent escape Enceladus and form Saturn's E-ring. "

Now, i dare you to provide some math to prove your point.

ANY disturbance would lead to orbital chaos
That's not a proof.

Someone should watch this:

Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 28, 2019, 10:56:49 PM »
Has anyone proved it is seen due south at the same locations at the same time?
It's up to YOU to prove otherwise! 

YOU are the one trying to to convince the RE Community to Accept Defeat and you are doing a terrible job of it!

I didn't make the argument. It was a logical question. People are accepting defeat everyday. Like it or not.
Rubbish! Prove that People in the RE Community are accepting defeat everyday!

No, no rubbish here. You should get out more. I know of teachers in your area that are busy. 


I hate to be that guy, but most people dropping by here are either for entertainment or just for trolling (so, also for entertainment).
So asking about accepting a defeat is kinda funny, but it's still not a top joke here :)

Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: August 27, 2019, 11:45:42 PM »
Very curious as to the results of your attempt at the experiment. I do however worry that there was a methodological issue with your implementation or the gathering and analysis of your results as I have performed this experiment many times and have always come to the conclusion that the earth must not be round.

Cut the crap, provide some photos of these bemused crowds and the experiment. Burden of proof is on you.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: August 26, 2019, 02:57:31 AM »
If John's 'experiment' is capable of showing anything it is that roundies are too easily trolled..

You do realize that the entire idea of a flat Earth is nothing more than an epic troll, right?

I second that. And now we have a proof of this. And it's more solid than proofs of flat earth.

Pages: [1] 2